Unlike David, I have never been accused of anal retentiveness. However, I'm now
cleaning the brick pillars in my fence line for the third time since I bought
the house three years ago. It's a pain in the neck to clean off and takes a lot
of time. I feel like I'm not allowed to have this really nice fence just
because some snot-nosed punk can buy a can of spray paint. My fence is on Lake
Street. I feel ghettoized when I get sprayed again and again.
Wizard Marks, Central
David Brauer wrote:
> D. Klein writes:
>
> >I thought I was the lone voice in the wilderness - but I too think this
> >obsession with graffiti is pointless. In fact - I've even seen some
> >graffiti I've rather liked. I guess some see it as a slippery slope; I
> see
> >it as a fine line. I do agree that the defacement of every flat surfaced
> >object in public is a nuisance, but I would rather spend my "civic duty"
> >energy on education, feeding the hungry etc. But hey, whatever .
>
> I'll admit, as one of the anti-graffiti maniacs you critique, that I've
> wondered why I feel so strongly about it myself. (Jordan Kurschner wondered
> the same thing at the last Mpls-issues gathering, and I'll admit, talking to
> a guy who defends the powerless, it does make you a little sheepish...)
>
> I'll be honest and admit one reason: anal-retentiveness. While not quite
> Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets," I have my moments.
>
> It really is, on some level, a very visible psychological crime. People in
> my area take great pride in the neighborhood's appearance, and some little
> punk has the arrogance to put something that'll stick in our face for days,
> or, given the city's cleaning speed, weeks. We're not talking out-of-the-way
> walls or free underpasses, either -- more like stone walls, nice planters,
> public street signs (including Stop signs, where it gets a little
> dangerous).
>
> Since I know business owners who've spent hundreds or even thousands to
> clean this crap up, I call it visual burglary, like ripping money out of
> someone's till. But the other thing is does -- and I think this is very
> important -- is that it creates a minor depression, a sagging. We all
> respond to visual stimuli, and sorry, most graffiti is NOT good-looking. It
> takes a lot of energy to keep a community healthy, especially public or
> openly private spaces where we all must accomodate others' needs. Seeing
> some arrogant jerk's work -- a visual f-u to that community spirit -- takes
> a little wind out of you, and over time, can take more, which leads to worse
> things.
>
> That said, is graffiti the biggest problem facing Mpls? No, but. Like Russ,
> I do a lot of other civic things that I hope are more important. But even if
> I don't, for many of us, this is a wrong we can see, and live with in our
> everyday lives. (Yes, this is a function of living in a nice area where
> larger social problems aren't as visible.) I don't blame anyone for taking
> it on. It's the folks who don't do squat about ANY social problem that I
> would criticize.
>
> In a perfect world, would I pick a grafitti-obliterated landscape where
> everyone gets a great education and a fully belly? Sure. But trust me, the
> larger social problems you see -- education, hunger, etc. -- also have
> massively more energy directed at them. The city's response to graffiti has
> been puny -- most of the energy you feel attacking it is precisely because
> nothing (other than empty words, for the most part) has been done.
>
> Anyway, it's a quandry I continue to think about, as I straighten the papers
> on my desk into neat little piles.
>
> Best,
> David Brauer
> King Field - Ward 10
